IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changesChristopher Monckton of Brenchleymonckton@mail.com

California State Assembly, 2012

The heavy cost ofa non-problem

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

Unsettled science

T

t

3 K/c

entu

ry, 2

000-

2100

IPCCcredibility

gap

1 K/century, 1950-2011

Predicted

Observed

More CO2

in the air

Sceptics’ projected warming:

≤1.3 C° for each doublingof CO2

Agreedwarming from CO2:

+1.2 C°for every doublingof CO2

Temp-erature feedbacks have only a smalleffect

Officially projected warming:+3.3 C° for each doublingof CO2

Feedbacksamplifywarmingthreefold:e.g., more water vapor traps heat

(5.35 ln 2)(7/6)(255/4/239)= (ΔF)(7/6)(TE /4/FE) = 1.2 C°

Skeptical view

‘Official’ view

Settled & unsettled

whereThis is the big question: is the feedback amplification equation the right one?

Or is a homoeostatic model more truly representative of our climate?

The debate is about temperature feedbacks

Temperature has varied by 8 C°, or <3%, either side of the

750m-year mean

Scotese (1999)Homeostasis

0.4 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.77 0.83 0.91 1.0 1.11 1.25 1.43 1.67 2.00 2.50 3.33 5.00 10.00 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

5 K

10 K

15 K

20 K

25 K warming

-0.9

4.5 K3.3 K2.0 K

0.42 0.74

Negative Positive

+0.1–0.5

Net-negative feedbacks: likelyStrongly net-positive feedbacks: implausible

–1 0 Loop gain 2 3

The wrongequation?

Loop gain

--20 K--15 K--10 K

--5 K

5 K10 K15 K20 K

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

IS THE IPCC’S CLIMATE

SCIENCE STRAIGHT?

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

IPCC (2007):Statistical manipulation

25 yr 50 yr100 yr150 yrIPCC (2007)

IPCC (2007):scientists’ final draft

1860-1880

1910-1940

1975-2001

Warming rates0.16 K/decade

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

Redrawing historyin IPCC (2001)

22

Now you see it …IPCC (1990)

Mediaeval warm period

Little Ice Age

1000 1300 1600 1900

oC

!

23

… now you don’tIPCC (2001)

?

24

Overstated 20th-centurywarming removed

25

390x

1x

Far greater weighting for‘hockey stick’ shapes

26

Temperature proxy data

Random red noise

The computer alwaysdraws ‘hockey sticks’

27

MWP

‘CENSORED_DATA’wipe out the MWP

MBH (1998/9)

‘I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of

adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years

(i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from

1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.’

Prof. Phil Jones to Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1999)

The raw dataBriffa Jones Mann Actual

WMO (1999)

Fiddleddata

WMO

How They

hid thedeclin

e

BriffaJonesMann

Actual

BEFORE AFTER

WMO(1999)

Was there a medieval warm period?

1056 scientists in 605 institutions in 44 nations … www.co2science.org

… have published papers giving evidence that the medieval

warm period was real, was global, and was warmer

than today

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

Rewriting consensusin IPCC (1995)

BEFORE‘When will an anthropogenic effecton climate change be identified?

It is not surprising that the best answerto this question is “We do not know.”’

IPCC (1995, scientists’ final draft)

AFTER‘The body of evidence now pointsto a discernible human influence

on global climate.’IPCC (1995, as published)

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

Failed predictionsfrom IPCC (1990) on

Temperaturechange (C°)

IPCC HIGH

IPCC MEDIUM

LOW

UAH

IPCC over-predicts global warmingHigh, medium and low projections (IPCC, 1990)versus observed reality, 1990-2012 (UAH)

1995 2000 2005 2010

Dr. David Evans (2011)

Boston, Massachusetts30 March – 30 April 2008

Global warming

20th-century warming

Prof. Richard Lindzen

in perspective

Global oceanheat content

+2 x 1022 J

+4 x 1022 J

+6 x 1022 J

–2 x 1022 J

IPCC models over-predict ocean warming

2006 2008 2010 2012ARGO buoys (0-700 m)

Climate models

Observations

Dr. David Evans

Sea level is rising at just 1.3 inches per century

Aviso Envisat (raw data)2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Hurricanes are quieter than for 30 years

A.C.E., 1972-2012: Dr. Ryan Maue

Extent and trend of global sea iceare almost unchanged in 33 years

University of Illinois, 1979-2012

Methane concentration upjust 20 ppb in a decade

Australian Bureau of MeteorologyCH4 concentration, Baring Hd., 1990-2009

CH4, 2000-2009:

+ 1/350 C°

Modeled

Observed

Wrongly-

predicted ‘hot spot’

ERBE/CERESNegative feedback

Pos.

Warmingat CO2doubling

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

ECONOMICCONSIDERATIONS

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

California’s carbon tax:a worrying case study

A case study: California’s CO2 tax

Case-specific assumptions y Target final year of the policy2020% of State’s emissions abated25%% of national emissions abated8%US emissions as % global emissions18.7%

p Fraction of global emissions abated0.004

Cy Projected 2020 CO2 concentr. (A2)413 ppmvGlobal annual GDP in 2010

$60 trGlobal annual GDP growth rate3% p.a.

x Cost to 2020, discounted to p.v. @ 5% $182 bn r Global GDP, 2011-2020, at +3% pa

$540 tr

| p Fraction of global emissions

abated0.004

Cy Projected BAU CO2 concentration in 2020

413 ppmv

Cpol CO2 concentration in 2020 after the policy

412.914 ppmv

ΔFn

ix

CO2 forcing the policy abates by year y

0.001 W m–

2

Global warming the policy abates

=

= trillion/F°x Real cost of the policy,

discounted to p.v.$182 bn

ΔTnix Warming the policy abates to 2020

0.001 F°

CO2-mitigation cost-effectiveness

The cost of abating 1 K of CO2-driven warming

by policies as cost-(in)effective as the policy

= $78 trillion cash = $11,000 per capita = 14.4% of global GDPΔTy Projected BAU warming to

20200.3 F°

M Mitigation cost-effectiveness of shutdown

$182 tr / F°

o Global population 7 billion

q Fraction of all forcings attributable to CO2

0.7

r Cum. real global GDP to 2020 @ +3% –5%

$541 trillion

Global all-warming abatement cost

of abating 0.15 K predicted warming to 2020

by policies as cost-(in)effective as the policy

Action/inaction ratioof the GDP cost of pursuing the policy

fully to year yto the mean GDP welfare loss from

inaction to year y

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

Economic conclusions

No policy to abate global warming

by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or

replacing greenhouse-gas emissions

will prove cost-effective solely on grounds

of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation.

CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies costly enough to beeffective will be unaffordable. Focused adaptation is better.

56

The West is no longerthe problem, so weare not the solution

Dr. David Archibald

Costs to California:benefits to no one

Percentage of global emissions abated0.4%

Fall in CO2 concentration, 2010-20200.086 ppmv Radiative forcing abated, 2010-20200.001 W m–2

Warming 10 yrs’ cap-and-trade abates0.001 F°

Cost of abating 0.3 F° | Cash$78 trillion predicted business-as- | /head$11,000 usual warming, 2010-2020 | % GDP

14.4% GDPAction/inaction ratio 10xCost of abating 6 F° warming to 2100$1560 trillion

The premium greatly

exceeds the cost of the

risk, so don’t insure.

IT’S THE SUN: changes in solar radiance striking the ground

explain recent temperature changes

The moralquestion

California’s self-inflicted wound

Too many environmental regulations

Cost-ineffective cap and tax scam

Costly‘renewable’ energy mandates

40-yr ban on most offshore drilling

UCLA fails to act on CARB scandal

UCSD fails to act on Oreskes scandal

California’s self-inflicted wound

Monterey shale holds 15 bn barrels of oil.

Production was 320 mm bbl in 1990.Now it is just 200 mm bbl. Why?

Over-regulation: that’s why.

Over-regulation means 11% jobless.2012/13 State Treasury deficit $6

billionUnfunded pension liabilities $250

billion50,000 rich Californians fled, 2007-

2009

Wall Street Journal, 10-11 March 2012, p. A11

The waggons are rolling East

Twice as many firms fled CA in 2011 as in 2010

Intel says it will never build another plant in CA

Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in one month

Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, DirecTV,

Hilton Hotels, Thomas Brothers Maps, all fled

CA 11% unemployment is second only to Nevada

CA construction unemployment is 50%

CFACT Southern California chapter

NationalGeographic

‘When millions are going hungry, it is a

crime against humanity that food

should be diverted to biofuels.’

Herr Jean Ziegler,UN Right-to-Food Rapporteur,

2007

65

Sightrestoredfor $8

68